NY-Siena: Trump fares worst against Clinton and Sanders

[MT Treasurer]

Clinton 57, Rubio 37
Clinton 57, Cruz 34
Clinton 57, TRUMP 32
Clinton 57, Bush 33
Clinton 55, Kasich 31
Clinton 56, Christie 36

Sanders 56, Rubio 34
Sanders 60, Cruz 30
Sanders 63, TRUMP 30
Sanders 61, Bush 30
Sanders 59, Kasich 29
Sanders 58, Christie 35

https://www.siena.edu/assets/files/news/SNY_February_2016_PRES_Poll_Release_--_FINAL.pdf

B-b-but NY was supposed to be a Tossup in a Clinton vs. Trump race!

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Damn Kasich gets massacred in NY big time.

[Skye]

What's hilarious is that Ted "New York values are bad!" Cruz is actually performing better than Trump.

Also, damn Rubio's numbers aren't actually half bad.

[pbrower2a]

Damn Kasich gets massacred in NY big time.

It's New York.

More relevant to John Kasich is how he does in winning delegates. It is possible to win a nomination by winning heavily in primaries and caucuses that one has no chance of winning in the general election.

[Xing]

In other news, it's below freezing in Fairbanks, Alaska.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Once again a slight edge to Sanders against the GOP.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Not much of a home state advantage for Hillary when Bernie runs so much better. Beating Trump by 33 points is a very high energy result.

[pbrower2a]

New York, Presidential results



2012 Obama 63 Romney 35
2008 Obama 63 McCain 38
2004 Kerry 58 Bush 40
2000 Gore 60 Bush 35
1996 Clinton 59 Dole 31 Perot 8
1992 Clinton 43 Bush 37 Perot 19
1988 Dukakis 52 Bush 48
1984 Reagan 54 Mondale 46
1980 Reagan 47 Carter 44 Anderson 8
1976 Carter 52 Ford 47

[Maxwell]

When New York voters get a glimpse of how much THE DONALD loves the state, that gap will close and close quickly friends.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

New York, Presidential results



2012 Obama 63 Romney 35
2008 Obama 63 McCain 38
2004 Kerry 58 Bush 40
2000 Gore 60 Bush 35
1996 Clinton 59 Dole 31 Perot 8
1992 Clinton 43 Bush 37 Perot 19
1988 Dukakis 52 Bush 48
1984 Reagan 54 Mondale 46
1980 Reagan 47 Carter 44 Anderson 8
1976 Carter 52 Ford 47

In how many other states did McCain outperform Romney?  Seems like NY is still getting more Democratic at an alarming rate.

[Gass3268]

New York, Presidential results



2012 Obama 63 Romney 35
2008 Obama 63 McCain 38
2004 Kerry 58 Bush 40
2000 Gore 60 Bush 35
1996 Clinton 59 Dole 31 Perot 8
1992 Clinton 43 Bush 37 Perot 19
1988 Dukakis 52 Bush 48
1984 Reagan 54 Mondale 46
1980 Reagan 47 Carter 44 Anderson 8
1976 Carter 52 Ford 47

In how many other states did McCain outperform Romney?  Seems like NY is still getting more Democratic at an alarming rate.

Obama had a larger margin in 2008 than 2012 in Alaska, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, and New York. Sandy played a big part for the last 2.

[pbrower2a]

New York, Presidential results



2012 Obama 63 Romney 35
2008 Obama 63 McCain 38
2004 Kerry 58 Bush 40
2000 Gore 60 Bush 35
1996 Clinton 59 Dole 31 Perot 8
1992 Clinton 43 Bush 37 Perot 19
1988 Dukakis 52 Bush 48
1984 Reagan 54 Mondale 46
1980 Reagan 47 Carter 44 Anderson 8
1976 Carter 52 Ford 47

In how many other states did McCain outperform Romney?  Seems like NY is still getting more Democratic at an alarming rate.

A Democratic nominee needs to win New York with at least 60% of the popular vote to be likely to win nationwide.

[Mike Thick]

Wait... New York isn't a battleground state?

THIS. CHANGES. EVERYTHING.

[Suburbia]

Trump could do well in Bensonhurst, Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. Staten Island and some parts of Queens where he grew up. Trump won't win NY unless the Democrats screw up big time.

[Boston Bread]

Looks like Trump's values are not New York values after all.

[Seriously?]

Clinton 57, Rubio 37
Clinton 57, Cruz 34
Clinton 57, TRUMP 32
Clinton 57, Bush 33
Clinton 55, Kasich 31
Clinton 56, Christie 36

Sanders 56, Rubio 34
Sanders 60, Cruz 30
Sanders 63, TRUMP 30
Sanders 61, Bush 30
Sanders 59, Kasich 29
Sanders 58, Christie 35

https://www.siena.edu/assets/files/news/SNY_February_2016_PRES_Poll_Release_--_FINAL.pdf

B-b-but NY was supposed to be a Tossup in a Clinton vs. Trump race!

The only way NY goes to the Republicans is in a glorious 40-45 state landslide. #notgoingtohappen

[pbrower2a]

Suppose that instead of New York you see something like this:

INDIANA

Cruz 49 Sanders 44
Cruz 61 Clinton 33

We know how Indiana goes. Everything must go right for the Democrat for the Democrat to have a chance of winning Indiana, much as everything must go right for the Republican for the Republican to have a chance of winning New York.

But what else could we conclude? Although neither Clinton nor Sanders has a chance of winning Indiana, Sanders is close enough in Indiana that the Indiana poll suggests that he is going to win a bunch of states that the Republican must win. Indiana has some of the same constituencies as do neighboring states. Indiana is simply more rural with few large suburbs.  It has Indianapolis, South Bend-Elkhart, Gary-Hammond, Fort Wayne, Evansville, and lots of cornfields and hill country.

(An aside: the highly-successful TV comedy Parks and Recreation is set in a fictional Indiana city with an upscale suburban character, only one Indiana community in any way resembles that description. Mishawaka somewhat fits that description.  The city is small enough that its name does not pass my spell-checker).

If more of Indiana were like "Pawnee", then Democrats would have about as much of a chance in Indiana as they have in Ohio.

Basically,  

INDIANA

Cruz 49 Sanders 44
Cruz 61 Clinton 33

suggests that although Cruz will win Indiana should he face Sanders he will have a tough time winning Ohio, which is simply more urban and suburban.   But this also says that he is doing well enough in places like the fictional "Pawnee" or the real Mishawaka that he will do well enough in Ohio to win and make Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin genuine contests should he face Clinton.

It's possible to draw conclusions about a national race from "sure things". Hillary Clinton
looks capable of losing a close election. Bernie Sanders now looks very strong.  Winners win sure-win states by wide margins and make the sure-loss states closer than they otherwise would be.  Losers win sure-win states by narrower-than-usual margins and lose sure-loss states by larger-than-usual margins. A Democrat winning New York by 20% is a usual winner in the national contest. A Democrat winning New York by 15% will lose the national contest.
 

[Sir Mohamed]

“I have a great chance to win New York. And I’ll win the latino vote”.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

“I have a great chance to win New York. And I’ll win the latino vote”.

Of course he will win New York. He has a great relationship with the blacks.

[Bismarck]

Suppose that instead of New York you see something like this:

INDIANA

Cruz 49 Sanders 44
Cruz 61 Clinton 33

We know how Indiana goes. Everything must go right for the Democrat for the Democrat to have a chance of winning Indiana, much as everything must go right for the Republican for the Republican to have a chance of winning New York.

But what else could we conclude? Although neither Clinton nor Sanders has a chance of winning Indiana, Sanders is close enough in Indiana that the Indiana poll suggests that he is going to win a bunch of states that the Republican must win. Indiana has some of the same constituencies as do neighboring states. Indiana is simply more rural with few large suburbs.  It has Indianapolis, South Bend-Elkhart, Gary-Hammond, Fort Wayne, Evansville, and lots of cornfields and hill country.

(An aside: the highly-successful TV comedy Parks and Recreation is set in a fictional Indiana city with an upscale suburban character, only one Indiana community in any way resembles that description. Mishawaka somewhat fits that description.  The city is small enough that its name does not pass my spell-checker).

If more of Indiana were like "Pawnee", then Democrats would have about as much of a chance in Indiana as they have in Ohio.

Basically,  

INDIANA

Cruz 49 Sanders 44
Cruz 61 Clinton 33

suggests that although Cruz will win Indiana should he face Sanders he will have a tough time winning Ohio, which is simply more urban and suburban.   But this also says that he is doing well enough in places like the fictional "Pawnee" or the real Mishawaka that he will do well enough in Ohio to win and make Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin genuine contests should he face Clinton.

It's possible to draw conclusions about a national race from "sure things". Hillary Clinton
looks capable of losing a close election. Bernie Sanders now looks very strong.  Winners win sure-win states by wide margins and make the sure-loss states closer than they otherwise would be.  Losers win sure-win states by narrower-than-usual margins and lose sure-loss states by larger-than-usual margins. A Democrat winning New York by 20% is a usual winner in the national contest. A Democrat winning New York by 15% will lose the national contest.
 

I understand your point about the margins and you're absolutely right, but Indiana's suburbs are the core of the GOP support there. Places like Carmel, Zionsville, Noblesville, and basically the rest of the counties around Indianapolis. Hamilton county is the third largest county by population and it is all suburban and one of the wealthiest counties in America. Sorry for the rant just wanted to clear that up. The rural areas are in a lot of cases less republican than the suburbs that surround Indy.

[Maxwell]

First they ignore you

Then they laugh at you

Then they fight you

THEN YOU STUMP THEM

[pbrower2a]

I understand your point about the margins and you're absolutely right, but Indiana's suburbs are the core of the GOP support there. Places like Carmel, Zionsville, Noblesville, and basically the rest of the counties around Indianapolis. Hamilton county is the third largest county by population and it is all suburban and one of the wealthiest counties in America. Sorry for the rant just wanted to clear that up. The rural areas are in a lot of cases less republican than the suburbs that surround Indy.

-

Indianapolis did what Houston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix did, taking over the unincorporated areas of its county so that it would have what might otherwise have been the suburban tax base. Carmel, Zionsville, and Noblesville are very conservative in their voting. But go beyond the suburban ring of most other cities and you will find much the same thing. This is the land of the McMansions, of people who use square footage and acreage as a defense against he urban trends that they dread but are rich enough to do something about. Indianapolis has no big suburbs. South Bend has Mishawaka.

What would otherwise be a tangle of suburban governments with the attitude "$crew the central city"as surround Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago, and Milwaukee are part of the city.

Add to this, what would be a suburban fringe of Indianapolis is fairly new. One of the distinctions between some urban areas is that some suburbs are old. Suburbs created just after World War II had new houses and new infrastructure both intended to last the lives of the people first buying them. Those suburbs still had some rural character -- but seventy years later that is gone. These places would be cheap to maintain for fifty years or so, after which time the infrastructure would begin to need huge overhauls -- and high taxes to support such.  Furthermore many of the original houses have become decrepit, and some tracts of early tract houses have been demolished for apartment complexes. Put in apartments, and the traffic needs get very bad very fast and the schools get overcrowded. Voila! In come higher taxes.

If you don't want your aging suburb or suburb-like community to go bad, then you end up having to get accustomed to high taxes. Tolerance for high taxes may be the difference between rural and urban life, and some suburbs can be very urban in quality. Such is the difference between Noblesville, Indiana and Cicero, Illinois.